Chapter 120: Saving the World – The Second Step – Forecasting Chaos

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: part one established the creation equation that led to a new way of thinking and the necessity of solving a problem to showcase ‘new think’ and that is to re-establish evolution towards a survival of the best. Part two investigates a means of forecasting the future based on the absolutes that created the universe and the truths derived from the relativity that forms the fractal that we live in to define what is achievable. Forecasting more than five years into the future is unachievable top-down [butterfly effect], but is determinable to some extent, when derived bottom-up.

Overall, our civilisation is in big trouble and if it is to be worth saving it needs to be changed using superior software tools to implement the change (part one), our understanding of the present problems and how a forecast can be made (part two) and a workable plan to attain that forecast (part three) must be made. Organising our presence on this planet, as a beneficial symbiote, can not occur until we understand the organisation of our society with respect to the environment and implement sustainable change (1) relative to us, (2) relative to the physical and (3) us relative to the physical and this cannot be done until we recognise relativity because the universe is defined by the absolutes and driven by relativity as a fractal. We are parasites that evolved to use the resources available and from evolution it is a truth that successful parasites do not kill their host and can even help by becoming symbiotic. Humans, on the other hand are on the verge of killing the environment through global warming and over-population. New technology may convert our energy use to renewables in time, but no acceptable plan is in place to limit population.

Newtonian physics was made too simple and left organisation ‘out in the cold’, and thus our understanding is limited until it is recognised that organisation is as important as energy.

As an example of how neglected is the concept of organisation:

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia’s quality standards. (July 2018)

The current title of this article is disputed. (July 2018)

(Wikipedia, Top-down and bottom-up design)

Firstly, the ‘ article may need to be rewritten entirely’ suggests that organisation is not well understood, so let us define organisation as the orthogonal of energy from the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0, where ‘1’ is energy and ‘-1’ is organisation] and thus energy and organisation are orthogonal [equal, independent and entangled]. This definition is necessary because we do not know if there is a better organisation, but we do know that if the energy is a minimum, the organisation is minimal, and that is all that we need to know to derive a unique organisational solution.

A digression is needed to explain that traditional mathematics is a special case [of general mathematical physics] and the ‘+’, in the creation equation is much more general than is suggested by the ‘plus’ sign. The first fractal is ‘1’ and ‘-1’ that only exists if they are kept apart and that is, I believe, why our universe is expanding [Big Bang]. The creation equation creates the universe as a ‘form’ [see Euler’s equation, part one], but the working of the universe is the orthogonal, which is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, true and false alternately and chaos where true and false occur at the same time]. Further, over a hundred years ago, the question of the wave-particle duality of the photon was never resolved [Einstein suggested, that both are energy, E=mc2], but the creation equation can be written as (a+b)=0, where a and b can be energy and organisation as long as (a+b)=0. This, I believe suggests the probability contained in quantum mechanics because a probability space is (a+b)=1, for all a, b [in traditional mathematics]. Thus the wave-particle duality is (possibly) the sinusoidal movement between energy quanta [particle] and wave [organisation] according to (a+b)=0 which is the restriction of the first absolute. The absolutes are logic plus the removal of relativity by dividing the dimensions created by the expansion restriction [energy, organisation, time and length], which is the logical restriction that [for all] energy and organisation, distance/time is a constant. Thus the speed of light must be constant to each observer, no matter how the observer is moving, which is the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the reason for the effects described in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Notice that all of the dimensions move together, presumably for simplicity, because of Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] so that logic is not corrupted because logic is (presumably) necessary for the organisational solution. Further, the form of the quantum has a logical structure, that does not require organisation or energy as part of its form and allows quanta to be infinitely small, which is a necessity for a logical-organisational solution of the working of the universe. In other words, a quantum is nothing more than a shimmer of energy and organisation with the logic that it must travel at a constant speed relative to the measurer in a vacuum with no minimum energy and the ability to form a neutron if it contains enough energy.

Secondly, the ‘current title of this article is disputed’, namely ‘ top-down and bottom-up’ suggests that its importance is not appreciated. I should mention that I completed a Master of Business Administration degree some years ago and I came across a mention that bottom-up was probably better than top-down only once, and that was all that was said. Top-down has been the source and bane of traditional physics and has led to innumerable problems and enigmas because it is simply guesswork that is ‘kept in check’ by voting between reviewers [peer review]. A case of the ‘blind leading the blind’ that has led to a physics that is based on energy, with a little organisation on the sidelines. Clearly, from bottom-up the way becomes clear, as shown by the derivations from the creation equation, above, and further, general mathematical physics pulls all disciplines into one and is the orthogonality of ‘new think’. ‘New think’ [part one] is the concept that uses the general mathematical physics [context] to vastly increase the possibilities of our mind/brain because the software has been expanded (possibly) fourfold because top-down has had bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities added to it. It is interesting that the hardware [energy as atoms] of the mind/brain allows this software [organisation] and the proof is in the understanding of the structure of quanta [above], the derivation of the law of gravity [part one], the quantum gravity equation [above] etc. The simplicity of the organisation of the universe, as shown above as bottom-up, induces me to search for an organisational solution to civilisation.

Logic is so important that I will repeat that the problem with organisation is that there are many methods of using various organisational methods to obtain the same result, so which do we choose? The simplest unique answer is to require the organisation be used that requires the least energy and we call this logic Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy]. But, how can the universe require this? The answer is that the universe is based on a logic that contains restrictions and on the first absolute that the total energy plus the total organisation must always be equal [creation equation]. If a photon did not take the shortest path between two points, it would violate the first absolute and a logical solution would not be unique and a unique solution is necessary for an organisational solution to exist. As an example, I believe that the neutron is an organisational solution involving quarks that cannot exist alone and that the photon is a wave [energy] and particle [organisation] duality that ‘shimmers’ between the two. In other words, the working of the universe is the logic of the half-truth: true, false, true and false alternately (shimmer) and chaos, where the shimmer allows ‘choice’ by presenting alternate forms to allow a reaction to occur at a distance. Compare this to Newtonian physics where a reaction occurs because of an energy gradient.

This is an important consideration that needs elaboration because it manifests itself as the ‘tunnel effect’ that astounded quantum physicists but has a simple answer based on choice, probability and organisation. Consider an important impact of organisation where in the pre-Cambian era animals were soft-bodied with poor eyesight that had to bump into a prey to find it. The advent of the lensed-eye added a software input that improved thinking and enabled the planning of an attack at a distance and that ‘action at a distance’ stimulated defensive amour, bones to support muscle, teeth for offence and defence etc. that we find today as fossils. Thus my guess is that an organisation changed evolution and that this scenario is a truth and in a fractal, truths repeat. Thus, the wave aspect of shimmer has the same form in reaching out in a probabilistic way to explain the ‘tunnel effect’ and is part of the larger consideration that reactions do not magically appear because of energy gradients [as in traditional physics], but need an ‘action at a distance’ in an organisational sense to see if they will occur, given an energy gradient. In other words, there is a probability that a particle will appear on the other side of an energy gradient, but in its organisational mode it is independent of energy and the problem is the restriction of traditional physics.

Referring to the title, ‘Forecasting Chaos’, it becomes apparent that the chaos, in our thinking, that we live with is apparent in our approach to the problem [and created by us] because everything in our universe is defined uniquely as a constrained solution and further that the whole universe is a fractal that is built on the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and is a simple place when looked at it in the correct way. Obviously chaos cannot be defined top-down, hence the name, but it is definable bottom-up, by definition, and that is how I am approaching the ‘saving the world’ problem. We are parasites that must change our ways because we are threatening the environment by our unrestrained actions and this chapter is setting up the concepts that need changing by considering the associated contexts. As an overview, we need to look at the concepts and contexts that make up our civilisation and note the absolutes and truths that we can apply in the next chapter.

As an example, and to restate the importance of the above simple logic, the average person wants civilisation to continue and improve, but it is all too complicated on the surface even to think about changing the system. The physical universe uses the minimum energy as the unique value that it needs and we can do the same by selecting a truth that Life has evolved over billions of years. In other words, we can select a truth from the behaviour of uncountable organisms of Life that are going about their business and so we have described chaos organisationally. It is really that simple! Thus, the aim of part two is to show that there is a solution, which has been done, and describe the contributing factors to allow us to suggest an organisation in part three and show how it could work. This might seem to require the universities with all their knowledge, but they are part of the problem and it is a democratic solution of people’s desire within the truth that is required, and further, it will be shown that the method is (literally) within each person’s reach. To be fair, requirements like democracy are thousands of years old and others that are necessary are only now becoming available through technology.

For 2,500 years scientists have guessed at theories, experimented and created a science that built a world-wide civilisation and then found, to its horror, that it did not work at the extremes and even worse, was destroying Life as we know it by a population explosion caused by technology. The reason is that a top-down application of organisation, as occurred in science, is not necessarily complete and even worse, enigmas, such as the definition of decision in part one are part of the everyday world are incorrect [refer to the Bay of Pigs] and as the Wikipedia entry above shows, our scientific community has little appreciation of organisation and even worse, organisation is actively discouraged, as in physics. Two thousand five hundred years of science [top-down] has brought the world to the brink of disaster, and yet, a simple creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] used bottom-up makes everything [literally] so clear that I will attempt to show how our civilisation can avoid the pitfalls of unrestrained growth.

Forecasting is the obvious first step, but there are two problems, firstly, ‘In my EPJ research, the accuracy of expert predictions declined toward chance five years out.’ (Superforecasting: the Art and Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner, p 244) and secondly, ‘On April 11, 2001, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. ‘“I ran across this piece on the difficulty of predicting the future” …. looks at the strategic situation at the start of each decade between 1900 and 2000 and shows that, in every case, the reality was a stunning change from ten years earlier.’ (p 242) Clearly, both the concepts and the context change remarkably quickly over time and shows that forecasting is not able to give the solutions that we need and show that we need a new way of looking at the problem and it will be seen that we have to determine truths that remain true for definite periods. Truths must, by definition, always be true and they must always be true from the bottom-up and whilst they can be found top-down, they cannot be proven to be truths. This simple logic is behind the problem with science, that scientists found a powerful toy and rushed off to play with it without amply considering the logic of what they were doing.

The principle of relativity states that everything is relative to something else, except for four absolutes (see box) and thus there must be a method of measurement (concept) and an actual measurement (context) that are independent of each other [orthogonal], yet entangled. Thus, the method of measurement (The First Step) need not be referenced in this letter because it is independent and I wish to derive everything from first principles to keep it simple, and the fact that we cannot measure one thing, on its own, because it has to be measured relative to something else is the basis of general mathematical physics because the creation equation shows the sideways orthogonality [concept/context] and the logic of organisation demands bottom-up. The word ‘general mathematical physics’ is an overarching of everything and includes all knowledge that physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. have determined and decided on for the last 2,500 years plus the physical structure of the universe [from the creation equation]. The statement that ‘economics and philosophy are truths’ [part one] might surprise because it is generally accepted that physics and mathematics are based on ‘unshakeable’ foundations and have an inherent elegance, but they are, in reality, riddled with enigmas that become apparent at the extremes. Even worse, economics and philosophy are considered to be closer to ‘mumbo-jumbo’ than anything physical or sensible and yet they hold the key to understanding organisation because they are based on the organisation [of the mind] that we do not understand well.

This assertion is so outrageous, that I had better explain that all disciplines [at the moment] are top-down guesses based on a voting system of peers [peer review], the universities are organisationally deficient and incapable of solving the world’s problems of over-population, global warming etc. and fundamental physics has been shut down for the last hundred years because Newtonian physics is incomplete. [http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason] The basic problem is that physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. evolved top-down (only) and no one wants to ‘upset the apple-cart’ by going back to basics and re-configuring (literally) everything. I do not have to worry about an academic career, but a rewriting of everything is not being accepted easily, and that is to be expected because it is a truth (from evolution) that the establishment continues doing what it was doing and the offspring become a new species. However, the physics hierarchy is breaking another truth [in loco parentis] by not helping offspring, and further, physics is built on energy and tries to disassociate itself from organisation, but to actively close down fundamental physics is a ‘step too far’ that this approach can redress. Economics and philosophy have the most ancient lineage [to generate truths] because a fruit tree pays an animal in fruit to distribute its seeds and the mind/brain [of all Life] evolved using the mathematics of concept/context [see box] to generate strategies that enhanced the organism’s competitive ‘edge’.

The aim of this letter, from the title, is to save the world and the only way to do that is with organisation, simply because the alternative [energy] has not worked and the endeavour involves new concepts, so, bear with me. The legend of the Holy Grail is unbelievable, but like democracy [mathematics of concept/context], the Golden rectangle [organisation], the Mona Lisa [organisation] etc. there is an emotion that we feel, but don’t know what it is, so perhaps our mind confabulates a reason and hence the Holy Grail. Similar to the other examples that I have given that can be easily explained by this theory, there may be a simple organisational solution to saving civilisation. Whilst this endeavour may savour of a Boy’s Magazine story, organisation has been placed in the ‘too hard’ basket and if we survive global warming, it will be because of a technology change to renewable energy and not a change to the organisation, in particular, the population explosion, that got us into this mess. The fractal expansion of the creation equation seems to explain so much of physics etc., so why not take it to its logical conclusion? [darrylpenney.com]

The obvious step is to look to the universities so that they can formulate plans using the world’s accumulated knowledge that they undoubtedly contain, but unfortunately, they are part of the problem because it is a truth that the established continue and a new species has to supplant them [evolution]. Thus, the motivation for saving civilisation must lie in the ‘grass roots’. Our civilisation is to blame for the world’s problems and so we need to examine orthogonality which is why economics and philosophy were chosen, however, whatever we do with them, we must always keep in mind the physical through the absolutes as well as the restrictions. The simplest restriction is that the universe is expanding because it needs to expand to exist (see box) for logical reasons, but a more pertinent point, from our point of view is that the universe is a fractal using the creation equation for the form and the logic of the half -truth for the functioning of the universe.

A digression might be in order because people tend to believe that the universe is ‘real’, which it is to every living creature because, if it were not, magic would happen and a predator might appear out of nothing [our point of view] and eat us. Thus a steady-state occurs only when every organism is part of a respect/defence reality. Physically, everything works on logic for the same reason and we call this simplicity either Occam’s razor or the principle of least action, whilst the mind/brain uses elegance, beauty, love etc. which we interpret as the energy that is generated in the measurer by measuring the organisation. Thus, we are the agents of choice and must use the truths of choice (part one) to make the best choices, otherwise we will have problems, and the current state of our civilisation shows this.

The logic of the half -truth is not the fiendish logic of philosophy but simply a choice between the orthogonals because they are the only options open to the physical and this explains the wave/particle duality that Newtonian physics cannot explain. If there are only two choices, and we have to make a choice, the logical way is to physically assume those guises and to see if a reaction occurs in either of those guises [shimmer]. The simplest physical example is, I believe, the photon that is pure energy and pure organisation because it oscillates between a wave and a particle, whereas the mind/brain evolved to compare strategies to evade predators and uses the creation equation in the form of the probability equation (a+b)=1 for all concepts a and b. If we are to make correct choices, those choices must be based firstly, on the physical truths of the creation equation, secondly, on truths that are the result of evolution and thirdly, the logical restrictions that are pertinent. The restrictions such as Occam’s razor and the principle of least action are logical consequences of the conservation of (total) energy from the ratio [non relativity] of the dimensions and the ratios are the same [principle of least action] leading to all of mass/energy, length and time changing in the Einstein’s theory [Occam’s razor].

Important to our civilisation is the making of choices and choice is an orthogonality between being told what to do by a king, dictator, strongman etc. and a democracy. Democracy was used by the ancient Greeks and we still use it today, so it is obviously a form of voting that appeals to us and it should come as no surprise that it is based on the mathematics of concept/context inherent in the creation equation. Further, the reason that we like democracy [fairness] could be that it’s organisation, based on the creation equation, produces [generates] emotion [energy] when we contemplate [measure] it. As an example of the longevity of truths, which labels them as truths, the Christian message of ‘love’ is orthogonal to the savagery of the times and has not only persevered but grown into a mammoth part of society that must be considered in social engineering. The concept of Christianity is appealing, but like many man-made organisations it is flawed and has led to a lack of control of population, which is the cause of the world’s problem. Religion results in an emotion [energy] generated by the organisation of the church, music, the building etc. in the same way that the flag, Anzac Day marches, government buildings etc. create emotion and is amenable in the same way.

Efforts have been made to bring the religions into one by forming new combined religions, but with little success, however the concept of government and of religion are similar in most respects and that is of prime importance in bringing them together. Religions ‘mirror’ governments in many regards, such as conduct, morality, welfare etc. and governments consider their effects to be useful, but they are also pursuing their own aims, often to the detriment of the country, such as the Catholic church prohibiting birth control. Restoring evolution, so that a woman produces the best possible offspring, brought up under ideal emotional conditions is the aim of every mother and in a modern world this is attainable, albeit with a few social changes that benefit everyone. This proposed organisation could be the Holy Grail of our civilisation and is within our grasp thanks to recent technology.

Democracy is important to choice, but the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 imposes physical restrictions on the way that we interpret it. Our democracy has been perverted by politicians seeking favours and a few examples are that those receiving government pensions can vote to raise pensions, voters are fined for not voting even when they are not interested etc. The probability equation (a+b)=1 also has similar physical restrictions and the ancient Greeks had a ‘pure’ form’ of democracy where only those knowledgeable and interested persons voted that actually fought wars or were acknowledged political figures that could participate in arguments and change their minds in discussions. Clearly, the context ‘+’ in the probability equation can be any form [absolute, truth, logic etc.] but it must be there and it must be able to be changed in discussion to give a meaningful decision and is a ‘far-cry’ from modern practices. Perhaps, the current practice of ‘no vote’ under 18 and full voting rights over 18 years of age needs to be changed to some system dependent on the ‘worth’ of an individual’s vote.

The democratic system that we use today has significant flaws, as above, but the governance organisation is better aligned because the triumvirate of judiciary, politics and police is required to be independent of each other. I believe that a better, more precise consideration is that politics and judiciary must be orthogonal and that each is orthogonal to the police and thus, police should not be influenced by politicians [as they often are]. Politicians are self-seeking and represent political parties that are aligned with hardcore groups of the rich and poor and this biases the system. Further, politicians are accused of shortsightedness because their terms in office are short, bias to particular groups and the orthogonality suggests that the judiciary, that is composed of educated mature long-term position-holders should formulate the long-term concepts of governance, assuming a well balanced board as described in part one and leaving the heated day-to-day running of the country to the politicians and the democracy in the parliament. Notice that the judiciary has a (sort-of) veto within it’s orthogonality with politics. World government is a fractal of this local government and it could be implemented in stages, as necessary, but people say that they do not want world government, but want control of their own country and, as we will see below, relativity places a restriction on this choice.

The form of governance over the millennia has been so important that much thought has been given to it and it largely follows what I am saying, as above, but the application of governance relies on the police to enforce laws and the redistribution of money. Apart from the salary, perks and antics of politicians that are always contentious, the government distributes taxes as welfare of various types and, as with the Churches, it is to the government’s ‘image’ to look after the old, disadvantaged, sick, unemployed etc., but if evolution were restarted and these numbers dropped, it would benefit the community with lower taxes, better health and a longer useful life time. I do not think that anyone would disagree that over the last 10,000 years, from the advent of agriculture, evolution has been ‘on hold’, so much so, that 60% of the population are overweight or obese and asthma, diabetes, allergies, Alzheimer’s etc. have become prevalent. Unfortunately, unrestrained population growth, the associated poverty, social and environmental problems benefit the growth of the churches and government in their role of supporting the less fortunate and is orthogonal to, and opposed to the central idea of this theory

A small digression might be in order to examine a question that bothered economists fifty years ago about whether the capitalist market system or the communist system of a managed economy was better and the question was resolved by history with the downfall of the Russian economy. It seems obvious that capitalist markets, democracy, governance, the mathematics of concept/context and the creation equation are all one and the same. No wonder that the capitalist system won! In other words, the capitalist system is that a buyer rate the desirability of a number of products to assign value [context] and make a choice under the restriction of price. Further, it is apparent that the universe is a fractal generated by the creation equation and that the form of our civilisation should include democracy and the capitalist market system in line with the creation equation.

Conclusion: thus, part one was the fundamental restriction that must be overcome by management, part two is setting up the concepts and part three sets up the contexts of a suitable civilisation that will take us into a sustainable future. I am merely using this theory to show that the possibility exists that we can change society to make it work to our advantage by using truths that are grounded in evolution and an example of the power of this approach is the market system, where its organisation, like democracy reflects the fractal generator of the universe. It now becomes clear why philosophy and economics are truths in organisation [evolution, democracy, market] and why, in a fractal, we have to use those truths to define our civilisation, also, that physics is based on ‘how’ and ignores the ‘why’ and is thus orthogonal to philosophy and economics and unsuitable unless we go back to their entanglement which is the creation equation.

Prediction: the evolution of Life has been based on survival of the fittest, and that is a label, that can be replaced by a concept/context of respect/defence that defines evolution. In a fractal universe, respect/defence is a truth, and for example, a politician or footballer that can defend their actions gains respect and if they cannot, they lose respect and are ousted from the game or parliament and in a modern society, the more guns in that society, the more respect and the better able to defend oneself and others. This theory justifies a social experiment on a limited scale in disadvantaged areas to show that it works and provides all of the players with benefits and this is further set up in part three.

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.